Comments on: What is a Peace Voter to Do?

By: Mike Ellison

Mike Ellison — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:05:37 +0000

My fear is that the electoral process is so corrupt that it is a completely failed system. Disenfranchisement, vote tampering, caging, exit poll discrepancies should invalidate the election. This is being reported everywhere except corporate media. In a rigged election there is no power of the vote.
Corporate media and the corrupt political establishment work for the same paymaster. The main stream is going to promote corporate candidates and marginalize reform candidates. Only made men are have a shot. It will be keep in the family and our votes won’t count.
You have to be a member of the club to get in the game and the game is fixed.

By: hp

hp — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:48:05 +0000

Erroll,
I appreciate and sympathize with what you’re saying. And I do mean sympathize because that’s exactly what will happen.
Shows how conditioned Americans are. Me included. I had, in my mind, already conceded this to be a two horse race.

By: Erroll

Erroll — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:46:35 +0000

I think the bigger issue regarding Nader is whether or not the Democrats and the Republicans will one again join forces with the networks and the cable stations to make sure that Nader is once again shut out in the presidential debates, as he was in the summer of 2000. The people in this country deserve to hear from a candidate who is not, unlike the Democrats and the Republicans, bought and sold by the corporate interests.

By: sk

sk — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:37:17 +0000

Cut and paste error in last post, here it is in full:

FYI, an excerpt from a very interesting recent take on US political history:

In general, Hough argues, Republican Administrations during the Cold War were more open to the détente policies favoured by the German-American component of their constituency, while Democratic presidents were more aggressively anti-Communist: Truman in Korea, Kennedy planting missiles in Turkey, invading Cuba and sending us troops to Vietnam, while Nixon negotiated with Mao and Reagan with Gorbachev. He admits that the picture is blurred, however, by the fact that each side compensates by proclaiming an ideological stance that is the opposite of its actions.

This foreign policy pattern of modern imperial democracies–in which a seemingly “liberal” government compensates for its perceived “wimp” factor at home by a foreign policy of Manichean violence overseas–has been has been borne out over long stretches in ideologically comparable powers such as UK under Labour government and France under Socialist rule as well.

By: hp

hp — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:33:08 +0000

So, are you saying, Deadbeat, that Nader will possibly have an even greater negative effect on a democrat being elected this time around? That every vote for Nader is in reality a vote for McCain. And this is, in essence, the ‘major influence?’

By: sk

sk — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:30:55 +0000

Vietnam, while Nixon negotiated with Mao and Reagan with Gorbachev. He admits that the picture is blurred, however, by the fact that each side compensates by proclaiming an ideological stance that is the opposite of its actions.

This foreign policy pattern of modern imperial democracies–in which a seemingly “liberal” government compensates for its perceived “wimp” factor at home by a foreign policy of Manichean violence overseas–has been has been borne out over long stretches in other powers such as UK under Labour and France under Socialists as well.

By: Deadbeat

Deadbeat — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:15:10 +0000

There is an excellent article on Counterpunch today regarding the Nader campaign. Nader is polling around 6% and can have major influence in the race this year if the polling is accurate. If the polling is accurate and holds up then Nader stance on the issues will get the hearing they deserve. This is going to be a very exciting election year.

By: Shane Savoie

Shane Savoie — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:48:25 +0000

I’m kind of bummed to see so many candidates to choose from! It looks like the Peace Vote will be split up several ways…Even though he’s a kook of the highest order, Alan Keyes will likely get the Constitution Party nod. Their platform is opposed to imperialist interventions.

By: Eric Patton

Eric Patton — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:55:52 +0000

> To help figure out what they will do if elected, Voters for Peace
> maintains a collection of key speeches, news reports, columns
> and other materials on all of the candidates.

Anyone whose IQ is larger than their shoe size knows what any U.S. president is going to do: preserve and enhance U.S. power in privilege in the world. Yes, right-wingers are more likely to try doing so through bombing, while liberals (left to their own devices) are more likely to try squishing offending third-world countries economically.

But anyone who’s not completely new to the left and doesn’t yet understand how U.S. administrations operate vis-a-vis foreign policy (sans a mass popular movement) just isn’t that smart — and needs to read more William Blum, John Pilger, and especially Noam Chomsky.

By: Rich Griffin

Rich Griffin — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:36:23 +0000

How any pro-peace voter could support Barack Obama simply boggles my mind. He has articulated his conservative core belief on this matter and no amount of wishful thinking is going to translate into better policies once elected. My concerns are also what he has had to say about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Israel-Palestine positions he has taken. For me, there are two candidates I could support, and it’s a question of who will garner the most support (McKinney or Nader), since I basically agree with both of them on most issues.